Saturday, March 17, 2018

A Warning from Australia to America : Don't Give Up Your Guns

 A Warning from Australia to America : Don't Give Up Your Guns - YouTube

There's some traffic from anti-gun proponents in America that "The Australian Solution" is a viable resolution to gun-control.     These would-be gun controllers assume that Australians are universally happy with the comfort and security which Gun Control provides them.

The people who offer the "Australian Solution" ("give up your guns, we'll take care of you!") tend to ignore the tiny little minority of Australians who believe that "Gun Control" will infringe upon their self-defense rights.

Likewise, Americans who own firearms for their personal protection are dubious about the claims of "Anti-Gunners" ... folks who want to disarm law-abiding Americans.

But the real

(12) Tucker: Don't pretend school walkouts are acts of bravery - YouTube

(12) Tucker: Don't pretend school walkouts are acts of bravery - YouTube: 1:13:08 Ravi Zacharias and Dennis Prager with Jeff Foxworthy The Death of Truth, The Decline of Culture Q&A Bryan Caron Recommended for you 28:19 Clint Eastwood interview Marmar Recommended for you 7:55 Tucker: Something ominous is happening to men in America Fox News 455K views 32:46 3/16/18: White House Press Briefing The White House 82K views New 5:26 Gutfeld on Hillary's catastrophic speech in India Fox News 76K views New Laura Ingraham: The radical takeover of California Fox News 53K views Tucker to Dem who wants Trump impeached: This sounds crazy Fox News Recommended for you Gutfeld: You did it, President-elect Trump Fox News Recommended for you Hannity: Second special counsel growing more likely Fox News 35K views New Ingraham: The humorless, out-of-touch American left Fox News Recommended for you PBS NewsHour full episode March 12, 2018 PBS NewsHour 71K views New US & the Wall: Deportees in Mexico unwanted by either side after decades in the US (RT Documentary) RT 241K views Whatever Happened to Miss Kitty, Amanda Blake from 'Gunsmoke'? KXRB-AM Sioux Falls Recommended for you Andrew McCabe is fired, then he fires back CNN 518K views New Gutfeld on nomination of Haspel and accusations of torture Fox News 20K views New SHOW MORE Tucker: Don't pretend school walkouts are acts of bravery

Friday, March 16, 2018

Microstamping Means Universal Registration of Firearms

In a simple, apparently neutral administrative motion to link a firearm to a crime, America has made a bold move to establish Registration of every firearm ... and firearms owners are bound to voluntarily ensure that a transfered firearm is registered to the new owner.

Microstamping case headed for California Supreme court argument: California’s high court is set to hear arguments in a long running case brought by firearms industry groups who say the state’s microstamping requirement is unattainable. 

NOTE: "Microstamping" is defined as the process where unique identification codes are stamped on the breech of a firearm, which will be embossed on the base of each cartridge case when the gun is fired.

That the expense and inconvenience of embossing unique identifiers on the breech of each new firearm is prohibitively expensive for manufactures ... is a relatively minor issue.  The REAL issue is that if a gun is used in a crime, the last "registered" owner of the firearm will be prosecuted for the crime, unless the sale of the firearms is registered to the new owner.

Otherwise, the last owner is liable to prosecution for any crime committed by the new owner.

This is a sneaky, underhanded trick played upon legal firearm owners to accomplish two goals which law-enforcement has long desired:

(1) track the ownership of every firearm
(2) identify the new owner of every firearm immediately after the transfer

This allows governmental agencies to identify every current owner of every gun, and the government doesn't even have to pass any other laws to enforce universal registration; gun owners will be eager to inform the government about every transaction (so the 'old' owner is not prosecuted for any crime committed by another possessor of the gun) ... establishing a Universal Registration scheme which is supported by every private seller.


Because if you sell a firearm, and it is not registered to the new owner, you will be held liable for any crime committed with that gun.

It also enforces a law (not now universally enacted) to inform the Government when you transfer ownership of a firearm to anyone else ... including a family member!

It also enforces laws  (not now universally enacted)  requiring gun owners to "promptly" inform the Government when your gun is stolen.   And if you are not aware of the theft of your gun, you are still, presumably, liable to legal action for not reporting the theft.

It doesn't matter how difficult it is to establish microstamping during manufacture of a firearm, or how burdensome it is for a state to track legal transfers.   The important thing is that, if this bill passes in California, it will soon be copied by every state whose political leadership is uncomfortable with private ownership of firearms.

It's the perfect law for anti-gun legislatures; it not only stuffs registration down the throat of every firearm owner in America, it makes us say "Thank you, Sir; May I Have Another!"

Leave it to California .... Microstamping

Unrealistic, impossible, and improbable;  no wonder California loves the "Microstamping" initiative!
Microstamping case headed for California Supreme court argument: California’s high court is set to hear arguments in a long running case brought by firearms industry groups who say the state’s microstamping requirement is unattainable. 
We have discussed the case for microstamping before, but the GUNS.COM article provides a clear explanation of the anti-gun movement's eternal attempt to render firearms ownership impossible:
 The case, challenging the state’s 2007 unsafe handgun modification requirements, is set for arguments in a Los Angeles court on April 4. Plaintiffs, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, insist the legal requirement for semi-auto handguns to mark cartridges with a microscopic array of characters, that identify the make, model and serial number of the pistol upon firing is “impossible to accomplish” and has only worked to artificially limit choices available to California gun buyers. At stake is the ability to purchase newly manufactured semi-auto handguns in the state.
One of the problems with "Microstamping" is that it's a simple matter to obscure the markings on the breech face of a firearm so that the data impressed on the base of a fired cartridge is unreadable.

Another problem is the administration; if enacted, this law would require that all firearms be registered with the stamping information.   This is an enormous administrative burden which will doubtless be passed down to the firearm owner, via the manufacturers' HUGE increase  in expensive tooling in ensuring that firearms are treated to include unique\ embossing on the breech face.

Yet a third complexity involves wear on the breech face over years of use, which will eventually obscure the "micro-stamping".

But perhaps the most important, and least discussed issue with "micro-stamping" is that it is designed to identify the firearm from which a cartridge is fired, and (by implication, since it it touted as a "means to identify owners who commit gun-crimes"), it also links the owner of a firearm to the gun.

This is Registration by Fiat.

The ultimate goal of Microstamping is to inflict a paper trail of gun owners.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Fisking Feinstein

Diane Feinstein recently published an "opinion piece" regarding the Second Amendment.   Some of her talking points are exemplars of circular logic; others demonstrate no logic at all.

GOP's false talking points against gun control are dangerous:
One frequent refrain:“Criminals don't follow the law.”This is absurd on its face. By this logic, we shouldn’t criminalize murder, rape or kidnapping. Laws exist to deter crime, and when a crime is committed, laws are there to ensure punishment is meted out. Banning assault weapons won’t prevent all shootings, but contrary to Republican talking points, we already know that banning these military-style weapons does reduce mass killings of six people or more.
Diane is right in that laws 'ensure punishment'; but murder is also against the law, and subsequent punishment is obviously not a determent.    We don't know that banning "military-style weapons" (not defined) reduces mass murder.

When the original ban was in place from 1994 to 2004, the number of such massacres fell by 37% and the number of people dying from them fell by 43%. 
Actually, the 1994 gun control law was allowed to 'sunset" because the statistics proved that the law did nothing to limit the number of murders ... which is why the Left was allowed to impose such an unconstitutional law on a "probationary basis".

 Another canard: The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Tell that to the 49 people killed in Orlando at the Pulse nightclub, where an armed guard was on duty and was unable to prevent the murders.
Clearly, a failure of the $9/hour Rent-a-Cop who decided he wasn't getting paid enough to get shot for defending attendees at a gay night club.   Had the "49 people killed" been armed, the outcome may have resulted in one murderer lying in a pool of his own blood, and the cowardly "armed guard" having been severely talked to by his supposed charges.

Another particularly terrible idea floated recently: arming teachers. How can we expect teachers, who already have too much on their plates, to undergo the same training as law enforcement officers and be able to confront killers armed with AR-15s? 
I don't entirely disagree with Di here; nobody realistically expects pedants to be protectors.   A few, perhaps.  After all, "if it just saves ONE CHILD..."

 The falsehood that is most frustrating, however, is that Democrats have no ideas to counter this violence. That couldn’t be further from the truth. 
Uh ... no.  That is, exactly, the truth.  Diane's own comments prove that:

 The first is getting military-style assault weapons such as the AR-15 off the streets. These weapons fire much faster than typical hunting rifles. They fire rounds that are also deadlier than those fired from a hunting rifle. A Parkland radiologist noted that an AR-15 round may leave an exit wound “the size of an orange.” These weapons are designed to kill people, not animals. Our current bill would ban 205 weapons by name, and any other weapons that accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. The 1994 ban required two additional characteristics, a loophole that gun manufacturers exploited. We'd close that loophole. Importantly, the bill also bans high-capacity magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. 
Well, criminals will have AR-15 rifles ... even if they must steal them (see below).  Diane would deny access to effective self-defense weapons to law-abiding citizens, only because the same firearms may be abused by criminals.

Again, the 1994 ban failed not only because it did not limit the amount of mayhem visited upon the public by criminals, but because it also disarmed citizens.   That Diane doesn't understand that salient point demonstrates her own willful disclination to allow "us" to defend ourselves against "them" by permitting us not to become criminals in our own defense.

The shooter at the  grade school in Newtown, Conn., for example, used 30-round magazines.  High-capacity magazines also lead to deadlier mass shootings. While law enforcement might be able to respond to mass shootings in a matter of minutes, a matter of minutes is all it takes to fire hundreds of rounds. 
The shooter at Newtown murdered his own mother in order to acquire her legally owned firearms.   He had multiple firearms ... so many that he didn't even use all of them.   He shot until he was stopped by the threat of police intervention, and then he killed himself.

He violated so many laws (including matricide), it is clear that the legality of his actions did not serve to dissuade him from his violent end.

In essence, it's difficult to say what laws might have been enacted which would have stopped any of these terrible murders.   Even if all firearms were outlawed and confiscated, we only have to look at Australia to see that would-be criminals will always have access to guns.

Is it wise for Feinstein to suggest that private ownership of firearms should be denied to honest American citizens?  Wouldn't that just serve to make criminals of the rest of us?

Because you know Americans will have our guns.

What no politician wants to admit about gun control - Vox

What no politician wants to admit about gun control - Vox: This problem is going to be really, really hard to solve

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Moms Demanding Action ... Look To Your Home

MDA is campaigning against Guns.   Why don't they take action at home?

It seems to me that many of the mass-shootings we've been seeing have been committed by "young people" (often in their teens).

Where were their parents, who are assumed to be bringing up their children to be "responsible members of society"?

Maybe the Moms Demanding Action movement could spend less time criticizing "society", and more time teaching values of responsible action to their own children.

Colorado chapters of Moms Demand Action gun control group nearly doubles in one month | Pueblo Chieftain: "The Parkland shooting was just the last straw for a lot of people," said [Moms Demanding Action] group member Rita Marquez. "For me, it was Sandy Hook five years ago, but there is just shooting after shooting after shooting and no action politically from our politicians and people are sick of it. They've really had it."

Here's a thought, and perhaps a new bumper ticker:

"Guns Don't Kill People;  Your Children Kill People!"
You want to change society?  Start with the societal factors which encourage out-of-control children.
Look at single moms,

So, what happened to "Dial 911"?

The single most defining characteristic of a "Panic Button" is that it is guaranteed to induce panic.
The second defining characteristic, in a "school environment"?    It will be abused until the point where it loses its effectiveness.

This is what New Jersey has proposed to defend against school shootings.

Good luck with that, NJ; this is just one more way that Jersey has decided to balance over-reaction with over-reaction.

NJ schools may install ‘panic buttons’ in case of school shootings | New York Post:
A proposed New Jersey bill mandating panic buttons and red emergency lights in schools is named for a former Bergen County teen killed in last month’s Florida school shooting.
 Dubbed “Alyssa’s Law,” the legislation would require all schools to have a dedicated panic button for use during school shootings and other dire emergencies. The device would not be audible at the school but would immediately alert authorities. In addition, a red emergency placed in a visible spot on the school’s exterior would activate in times of crisis.
Prediction:   Students will manage access to the Panic Button and use it to provide a "No-School Day" at their leisure.   Eventually, Law Enforcement will assume "just another false alarm" and response time will consist of Tootie and Muldoon dispatched to see who screwed with the siren this time.

If/when a real emergency occurs,  LEO response time will not be the highest priority.

When I was a Teen, I knew a lot of kids who loved confounding "The Establishment".

I wasn't one of them of course.